Income Tax : Understanding the exclusion of time limits during Court stays in assessment proceedings under Finance Bill 2025 for Income Tax ass...
Income Tax : Explore Section 263 of ITA, 1961, and its implications for revising assessment orders with no discussion on certain issues. Judici...
Income Tax : Explore landmark judgments on capital gain tax exemptions under Sections 54 and 54F of the Income Tax Act. Key highlights from ITA...
Income Tax : Understand the differences between appellate powers u/s 251, revisional powers u/s 263, and 264 of the Income Tax Act, and how the...
Income Tax : Explore the necessity of issuing notices under Section 263 post the Faceless Assessment Scheme introduction. Analyze the schemes e...
Income Tax : National Chamber of Industries & Commerce, U.P has made a representation against Indiscriminate notices by the Income Tax Depa...
Income Tax : KSCAA has made a Representation on Challenges in Income Tax Related to Rectification Proceedings, Order Giving Effect, Delay in P...
Income Tax : One of the key sources of dispute is the existing arrangement for follow up on audit objections by Internal Audit Party and the Re...
Income Tax : Delhi ITAT rules Section 56(2)(viib) of the IT Act does not apply to transactions between holding and subsidiary companies, quashi...
Income Tax : Rajasthan High Court held that profits and gains generated by captive consumption of electricity is eligible for deduction under s...
Income Tax : M/s. GRR Holdings is a firm was incorporated on 31.01.2014 with two partners Shri Gaddam Shyam Prasad Reddy & Shri Syed Fayaz Moha...
Income Tax : Calcutta HC dismisses IT appeal against Subhlabh Steels due to ongoing insolvency under IBC, citing SC ruling in Monnet Ispat. Rea...
Income Tax : Delhi High Court held that reopening of an assessment under section 147 of the Income Tax Act merely on the basis of communication...
On perusal of the A.O.’s order and material on record, we find that the CIT invoked section 263 of the Act because the CIT did not feel satisfy with the conclusion made by the A.O not on account of that the order of the A.O. was erroneous. The CIT invoked section 263 of the Act simply on account that the A.O. did not carry out the investigation of the case on the line of investigation as CIT wants.
Passing of an order under Section 158BC rests on the previous approval of the Commissioner. On a reading of Section 158BG, particularly the proviso, reveal the mandatory nature of such an approval, that the proviso reads as ‘provided that no such order shall be passed without the previous approval of the Commissioner …’. In the background of the above-said provisions, in keeping the law declared by the Apex Court in Sahara India (Firm)’s case (supra) that with civil consequences flowing out of such an approval, we have no hesitation in accepting the plea of the assessee that in the face of such an approval granted to the order passed under Section 158BC, there can be no assumption of jurisdiction by an authority of the same rank under Section 263 of the Act.
In the original assessment order deduction under section 80I had been granted on the total income, inclusive of the income under section 68 of the Act. The grant of such deduction was not questioned by the revenue at the relevant time. When the matter reached the Tribunal, the same was remitted to the Assessing Officer for reconsideration of the issue pertaining to addition of Rs. 59,56,000/- credited in the books of account by way of share application money on the ground that the same was an unexplained credit out of income from undisclosed sources of the assessee.
In the present case, the records reveal that the assessee was specifically queried regarding the nature and character of the one-time regulatory fee paid by it as well as the bank and stamp duty charges. A detailed explanation in the form of statements and other documents required of by the Assessing Officer were produced at the stage of original assessment.
Perusal of the assessment order passed by the Assessing Officer does not show any application of mind on his part. He simply accepted the claim of the assessee with regard to the issues considered by the CIT. This is a case where the Assessing Officer mechanically accepted what the assessee wanted him to accept without any application of mind or enquiry.
All the agreements, invoices and related documents produced before us lead to the fact that the payments have been made only for supply of manpower for certain amount of hours and nothing more. Since there is no technology, skill, experience, technical plan, design, etc. had been made available either by the assessee or the ACSC as held by the Cit (A), invoking the provisions of Article 12(4)(b) of the DTAA for treating the payments as chargeable to tax in India, is not justified.
There was no enquiry by the Assessing Officer on the issues raised by the CIT in his order u/s. 263 of the Act. The lack of enquiry or inadequate enquiry by the Assessing Officer could be very much reason for assuming jurisdiction u/s. 263 of the Act.
It is settled law that when an officer adopts one of the courses permissible in law and it has resulted in a loss of revenue or when two views are possible and the Assessing Officer takes one view with which the Commissioner does not agree, the order cannot be treated as erroneous in so far as it is prejudicial to the interests of the revenue.
The assessee has not claimed depreciation on goodwill it acquired commercial rights to sell products under the trade name and paid consideration in dispute for acquiring marketing and territorial rights to sell through dealers and distributors i.e. the network created by the seller for sale in India. Under the agreement. It become entitled to use of infrastructure developed by the seller. Rights were acquired since 1.4.1998 and these rights have all along been treated as an asset entitled to depreciation and depreciation was actually allowed in the past.
ITO V/s. DG Housing Projects Ltd. In the present case, the findings recorded by the Tribunal are correct as the CIT has not gone into and has not given any reason for observing that the order passed by the AO was erroneous. The finding recorded by the CIT is that order passed by the AO may be erroneous.
